Skip to main content

About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
is taking the prop 8 case, the perry case, as well as the doma case. and, you know, look, when this case was filed almost four years ago, the prop 8 case, we made the case in court, ted olson and david boyce, that in this country we don't deny our citizens a fundamental right, and the supreme court has called marriage a fundamental right no less than 14 times in the history of this country, and i'm optimistic that once the court does hear this case and the doma case, they're going to come down on the side of freedom, liberty, and equality just as they have so many times in our nation's past. >> and equal protection of the laws. elizabeth, thank you for coming on. very haven't seen you in a while. equal protection of the laws. liberty is a pretty profound notion in this country. >> it is. >> pursuit of happiness is in our declaration. why not? >> here is the thing, if you are gay and alive in our time in america, we're living in a kind of a policy and civil rights renaissance. we have seen extraordinary leadership from other parts of government already. don't we judge, chris, presidents b
it better. it is an incredible day the supreme court is taking the prop 8 case as well as the doma case. when this case was filed almost four years ago, the prop 8 case, we made the case in court. in this country, we don't deny our citizens a fundamental right. the supreme court has called marriage a fundamental right no less than 14 times in this country. i'm optimistic once the court hears this doma case they will come down on freedom and libberality as they have. >> elizabeth, i haven't seen you in a while. equal protection of the laws. >> if you are gay and alive in our time in america, we're living in a kind of a policy and civil rights renaissance. we have seen extraordinary leadership from other parts of government already. we -- don't we judge presidents by whether they stand tube the moment of history in which they live. we have seen president obama step up to this issue, gay marriage. >> "don't ask, don't tell" now saying he won't enforce doma. >> our military has stepped up. >> even the marines are doing a great job. >> even the marines are. now, we have to see, will the supr
today, that the supreme court is taking the prop 8 case, the perry case, as well as the doma case. and, you know, look, when this case was filed almost four years ago, the prop 8 case, we made the case in court that in this country we don't deny our citizens a fundamental right, and the supreme court has called marriage a fundamental right no less than 14 times in the history of this country, and i'm optimistic that once the court does hear this case and the doma case, they're going to come down on the side of freedom, liberty, and equality just as they have so many times in our nation's past. >> and equal protection of the laws. elizabeth, thank you for coming on. equal protection of the laws. lib cert a pretty profound notion in this country. >> it is 37. >> pursuit of happiness is our declaration. why not? >> here is the thing, if you are gay and alive in our time in america, we're living in a kind of a policy and civil rights renaissance. we have seen extraordinary leadership from other parts of government already. don't we judge, chris, presidents by whether they stand up to the m
the federal defense of marriage act, or d doma, and another involving california's proposition 8, banning same-sex marriages in that state. for analysis into these historic cases, what's going to be a historic hearing, i want to bring in kinji yoshityoshito, professor of constitutional law at new york city. great to see you. >> good to see you. >> put prop 8 aside for a second. do you believe that the supreme court will strike down doma. this is what what you've said. walk me through your thinking on that one. >> y bet. so doma is a really narrow challenge insofar as what the statute does is it says for federal purposes marriages are defined between one man and one woman. so i think it might be best to clarify this by example. so you take edie windsor, a plaintiff coming out of new york who's going to be the plaintiff in this case. she was with another woman for 40 years. they got married in 2007. when her partner passed away, her wife passed away, for state purposes, in the eyes of new york state, she was next of kin. so her remains were released to edie. but for federal purposes, they were c
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)